Sunday, 27 May 2012

New research, provided exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, reveals a dramatic swing against border issues, with 51 per cent in favour of saying no to all migrants - a 10 per cent jump since 2005.

Fears over falling job security and the burgeoning population putting more strain on infrastructure are two reasons for the shift in attitudes. The federal opposition said yesterday the anti-immigration sentiment was due to rising public anger about the number of asylum seekers attempting to enter the country.

Just a third of the 2000 people questioned by Quantum Market Research for AustraliaSCAN believed overseas migration made Australia "a more interesting and exciting place", down from almost half in 1995

Almost two thirds said they believed migrants should try to "adopt the Australian way of life" when they arrived.

The number who believe the country has room to accommodate more people also plunged to less than a third, down from 42 per cent a decade ago.

I admire the Australians' ability to speak out openly about this and I hope Canadians will do the same because I think Canadians generally share the same concerns.

Ms Gillard has been lashed by union leaders and members of her own party over yesterday’s announcement by the federal government that mining magnate Gina Rinehart would be permitted to hire up to 20 per cent of the construction workforce on her Roy Hill iron ore project from overseas.

Labor Senator Doug Cameron warned earlier today at the Prime Minister faced tough questions at a caucus meeting on Tuesday over the issue, which erupted in the midst of a government campaign against resources billionaires as it attempts to sell its “battlers’ budget”.

Speaking today in Melbourne, Ms Gillard attempted to douse the flames, saying that a "jobs board'' would be created that would give Australian workers information about what jobs were available in the resources sector.

What's funny about this is that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard is leader of the Labor Party which by implication means Australia has a Labor government. The Canadian equivalent would be like having the NDP in power in Ottawa.

Apparently you - and undoubtedly others who make their living in the health care industry- are opposed to the removal of medical benefits made available to refugees that Canadians don't receive; having to pay for them out of pocket in part or in whole.

Good on ya! It's nice to see you actually do care about the welfare of others and are not solely in the medical field for the money.

For the government it's all about costs. These cuts to refugees' medical benefits will allegedly save Canadian tax payers $100 million over five years. I agree, it's a small sum compared to the overall costs of maintaining a universally accessible health care system that it shouldn't be a concern. But with ever increasing national health care costs it seems any place where costs can be slashed, no matter how small, is needed to maintain the overall integrity of the system.

Being doctors I understand your opposition. Any cuts to health care benefits or services that will prevent or discourage anyone from seeking immediate, proper medical care offends your sense of morality and professional ethical code.

So a balance needs to be struck between the government's need to control health care spending and your desire to service the health care needs of your fellow man and I think I found the solution.

Work pro bono.

For refugees that is. And cover all their medical expenses while you're at it. This means that a dentist, for example, will work on a refugee's teeth for free and pay for any other of the refugee's necessary dental expenses out of his or her pocket billing no one in the process.

Everybody wins! Refugees' medical benefits are restored, the government gets to save it's $100 million over five years, and - above all - your desire to help people gets a steroid shot in the arm with the satisfaction that you did it at great personal financial sacrifice proving that you're not in the medical field for the money.

But I know you won't do that or even consider it because at the end of the day all of Canada's doctors are really small businessmen at heart. Patients are not patients. They're clients and the more clients you see, the more bills are mailed out, the more money goes into your bank accounts.

Isn't this what it's all about? If refugees know that their medical expenses are covered by taxpayers they're more likely to grace one of your offices and become another client. People who have to pay out of pocket are more likely to delay a trip to the doctor's office if not avoid it altogether. That means less money to you.

I don't say this as a chastisement. Like all humans you are creatures of self-interest and I appreciate that. But let's be honest here. This is about protecting your client base and business model at other people's expense. It costs you nothing to protest and moral grandstand for the news media. You come off looking like saints but you do so at almost no personal sacrifice on your part.

How about you turn the volume up to 11 and agree to service refugees health care needs at no cost to the taxpayer? If you really are in the medical field because you want to help people then the money shouldn't matter that much. How costly will it be to you to service refugees pro bono anyway? It's not like your entire practice is devoted to servicing refugees is it? I'm sure you can slip in a pro bono refugee medical case here and there. If $100 million over five years isn't going to break the bank of Canada's health care system I doubt working pro bono for refugees and covering their medical expenses isn't going to break yours either. How about that? Your paid well enough already so I'm sure you can afford it.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

The snakehead, a predatory fish, was spotted last week for the first time in British Columbia, at an urban park. Since its first appearance in the United States nearly a decade ago, the fish has caused major destruction of marine ecosystems.{...}

Rod Gonzalez was out at Central Park in Burnaby on May 13, feeding the koi fish in one of the park’s ponds, when he spotted a large fish.

“At first I didn’t know what it was but as the camera zoomed in, I realized it was a snakehead,” said Gonzalez, who posted the video he shot on B.C. Aquaria.com, a forum for fish hobbyists. “I’ve seen it online and on shows but never seen one in real life.”{...}

The snakehead would most likely be a northern snakehead, native to Asia, and available for purchase in Vancouver as food. Gonzalez said he’s known people who kept the fish as pets, and has heard that when they get too big, the fish is dumped.

Snakeheads can grow as long as 1.2 metres and weigh as much as seven kilograms. B.C. is considering a ban on their sale.{...}

“The big concern is if it’s a northern snakehead that it may get in the Fraser River and then it would be a predatory fish that some of our native fish wouldn’t know how to respond to,” said Herbourg. “It would be another stressor in the ecosystem for our fish species, and it’s hard to predict outcomes.”

Snakeheads in B.C.’s rivers could affect migrating salmon, according to Herbourg, just as the fish’s appearance in Maryland waters hurt the existing largemouth bass population.

Professor Jonathan Moore at Simon Fraser University, who specializes in conservation and ecology of aquatic systems, said the most likely way the snakehead found its way into the Burnaby pond was through someone leaving it there.{...}

Not only could native salmon species be harmed if the snakehead population grows, but other species like amphibians could be decimated by an invasive fish like the snakehead which is known for its hardy survival skills and can eat other fish up to a third of their body length.

The abilities of snakeheads to survive and push out existing species in marine eco-systems have taken on almost mythical proportions. But Herbourg notes that tales of the fish being able to walk on land or even tear off someone’s arm are fictional.

There's probably a metaphor for immigration in here somewhere but I haven't put my finger on it yet.

Because the immigration system he is Minister for is ensuring that every single acre of Canada's arable land will be paved over to accommodate unchecked (and unnecessary and unwanted) immigrant driven population growth making sure we won't be able to feed ourselves and become dependant on food imports.

So not only are there no "good jobs" available, many being shipped overseas (ironically to the countries where we import our immigrants from to fill jobs here) but there are no "bad jobs" available either thanks to decades of reckless mass immigration. Immigrants do jobs Canadians don't want to do, remember?

I might be onside with Jim Flaherty if his party didn't insist on importing a record number of immigrants into Canada during one of the worst economic downturns in recent memory. There's no sense in this.

Making matters worse you have that mediocrity called Diane Finely announcing that the Conservatives plan to make it easier to import temporary foreign workers into Canada and pay them 15% less than the prevailing wage.

Include tighter EI rules, add tax cuts for billion dollar institutions into the mix with no foreseeable reforms to MPs inexcusably generous and bloated (dare I say scandalous?) pensions and you have a recipe for disaster for the Conservatives come next election. Do they really want to lose that badly? Are they not comfortable with a majority and long for the days of forming a minority government? Because right now they baked a cake that tastes like bile with "F**K YOU CANADA!!!" written on top of it to make sure no one misses the point.

It's a shame because if any party is going to reform the immigration system for the better I'd imagine it would be the Conservatives. If they managed to place themselves in the fast track to electoral ruin that would mean the next government will be either a Conservative minority or a Liberal or NDP majority. Fixing the immigration will be all the more difficult where the only strategy left is to let it implode on itself forcing whoever is in power to finally do something about it.

Monday, 21 May 2012

Here's another that goes in the "accommodating those who don't accommodate us" file.

And I nominate Chinese Colony of Canada #5 City of Markham Councillor Joe Li for the Darwin award "failing to see the hypocritical irony in his/her moral grandstanding" for this brilliant exercise of double standards.

“The world is changing around us,” said Markham Councillor Joe Li, who put forward Thursday’s motion. “Just because of your own belief, you should not impose your views on other people.”

How about that? Chinese nationals come to Canada and are aghast they have to close their businesses on statutory holidays. So they want us to change the law that will inevitably set a precedent that will affect the rest of us just to accommodate them. Otherwise we'd by imposing our "views on other people" particularly a people who, for the most part, wilfully chose to come to Canada and stubbornly refuse to assimilate.

And what does he mean by "the world is changing around us" anyway? Does he really mean the whole world, which would include China, or is "the world" his coded way of referring to just Canada? I'm betting it's the later. Therefore to translate: Canada is becoming more like China everyday and since in China the Chinese are open on Easter but closed on Chinese New Year then they should be able to do so in Canada.

This isn't about religion. This is about a bunch of money-grubbing Chinese nationals who want us to accommodate their money grubbing ways. Secularists are jumping onside with this because it allows them to attack Christianity (again!) in their ongoing war to remove it from every facet of Canadian life seemingly to replace it with the national religion of multiculturalism. They're idiots!

As much as they don't want to acknowledge it Christianity played an important part in the foundational history of this country and the shaping of its laws and society. You cannot discuss Canadian history absent Christianity. That we still recognize days like Easter are carry overs of that fact and continue to do so just honours Christianity's special place in Canada.

Besides, who is really complaining? Who would complain at having a statutory day-off rooted in religion? No one except money grubbing Chinese nationals with no real attachment to Canada beyond monetary reasons and a bunch of agenda driven secularists. I'm sure many of those who work in the retail sector irrespective of religious persuasion aren't. They know it's will be another day they'll be forced to work or risk losing their job.

If you want to complain about a day then let it be Victoria Day. It's a national holiday celebrating the birth of a long dead and forgotten British Monarch which has become nothing more than an excuse to have a long weekend during an agreeable time of Canadian weather and shoot off fireworks.

Oh, and no other nation in the the Commonwealth celebrates it. Just us. Imagine that!

I can think of more pertinent reasons to dump Victoria Day than Easter but why bother? The day off is more appreciated than it's meaning whether the day is rooted in religion or not. And I think this is how most Canadians feel. A day off is a day off.

It's not like we have enough days off in this country to start with. Why start dismissing them just because some Chinese nationals - who should have stayed in China if they insist on acting like Chinese nationals - and their secularist enablers are having a hissy fit?

National holidays unify the nation. By taking the day off you're participating in a civic activity that unites you with your countrymen across the land. If we start to chip away at this one holiday at a time and turn them into an individual's choice to take the day off we become atomized as a people and weaker as a nation.

As the saying goes, when in Rome do as the Romans do. When in Canada do as the Canadians do. If you are in Canada and do as the Chinese do then you're Chinese, not Canadian no matter what some piece of government issued document says. You prove them to be just words on paper.

Among other things, the bill would see people designated as part of a “mass arrival” detained for a year before the decision to imprison them was reviewed.

That measure is designed to address the recent arrivals of boatloads of migrants and deter future ships.

Kenney said Wednesday that provision will be changed so that a review will take place at the 14-day mark and then again six months later.{...}

The legislation will also be changed to make clear the government won’t revoke permanent residency status for refugees when the situation in their home countries improves.

The bill, as it was written, could have seen refugees who visited their now-peaceful countries of origin lose their permanent residency status in Canada.

Let's face it. Refugees are just immigrants by another name and another stream.

By definition a refugee is seeking temporary shelter until things improve in their home country and a safe return is assured. Not so with Canada's asylum system. We grant them permanent residency and eventual citizenship on less than the most basic of criteria. If they do return to their home country they do so with Canadian citizenship in tow. That being the ultimate reward for an asylum system well gamed you can see how it invites fraud.

I don't know why Jason Kenney caved to their demands. I don't know why he even listens to these advocacy groups when he has the nation on his side. Why does he give them so much credence, even in the face of their inherent conflict of interest, yet critics of the immigration system are routinely marginalized?

I'm willing to admit that perhaps at times proposed reforms can go too far but it seems that when amendments are made to address concerns to the proposed changes they are of a nature that waters the reforms down so much that they might as well have never even bothered with them in the first place.

I'm betting Jason Kenney caves on the list of safe countries too even though having a list wouldn't contravene the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Any takers?

"The total annual health care cost for a (parent or grandparent) immigrant arriving in 2010, over the age of 65, is estimated to be $10,742," officials told Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in an August 2011 memo obtained by lawyer Richard Kurland through an access to information request.

That figure is just for hospital care, and doesn't include the cost of visits to a doctor's office, long-term care, or other social services taxpayers cover through provincial health insurance.

Officials estimate a 65-year-old immigrant will run up more than $160,000 in hospital bills by age 85.

Kurland said it's useful to have these numbers out in public.

"This will serve as intelligent data for an intelligent debate on the affordability of increasing the number of parents coming to Canada," he said.

Kurland said he favours having senior citizen immigrants pay as much as $150,000 up front to help defray health care costs, with provinces deciding if they want to accept seniors who can't afford to pay anything.

If mass immigration is being employed as part of some neo-Con conspiracy to financially bust the pubic health care system and help usher in private health care then I say it's doing it's job nicely.

Despite this, Kenney intends to increase the quota for parents and grandparents admissions, at least in the short term, even though this will be extremely costly. Estimating from a recent study of health care costs for the elderly by David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, each sponsorship of a relative aged 65 or more will cost taxpayers about $192,000 over his expected lifespan of 20 years. If Kenney admits all 165,000 in the current backlog, health-care costs will increase by a total of $31.8 billion or $1.6 billion per year.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Immigration applications from key Asian countries have dropped by more than half since 2006, when the Conservative government began transforming its migrant selection.

Critics say the disproportionate declines from China, India, the Philippines and Pakistan could be an indication of how Ottawa’s policy changes favour some immigrant countries over others, and would have an impact on the immigrant mix.{...}

Applicants from China fell 45 per cent from 55,647 to 30,507; India by almost 51 per cent from 61,559 to 30,283; the Philippines by 32 per cent from 37,132 to 25,378; and Pakistan by 65 per cent from 31,330 to 11,066.

While the number of applications fell overall for the top 10 source countries from 227,689 to 140,712 during the period — a reflection of policy changes to control immigration intake and backlog — the declines of the top four countries were bigger than English- or French-speaking countries.

Thank you Santa, I'll never stop believing in you!

While this is good news it shouldn't distract us from the point that immigration levels are still too high no matter where the immigrants come from. If all 260,000+ immigrants came from Europe it'll still be too many.

What I have been complaining about is that not only are we are getting too many immigrants as a whole but we were selecting them from too few source countries. Nearly half of all immigrants are coming from Asia and it shows. A casual jaunt around Toronto or Vancouver makes this very clear. At times you'd think you somehow leapt across the globe and landed in Hong Kong or Mumbai by merely crossing a city street. It's absurd! When we Canadians speak favourably of immigration we don't mean to say we favour the transformation of our country into Chinada or Canadasia or Candia. We never agreed to this because we were never consulted nor was any government ever given the mandate to alter the character of the country through immigration.

Which brings me to the woman interviewed in the Toronto Star article:

“Without being part of a public consultation, we’ve drastically changed not only the way we do immigration, but the immigrants who come in,” said Ratna Omidvar, president of Maytree Foundation, which has a mandate to build strong civic communities.

“Immigration selection is not simply about headhunting, but about nation-building. Immigration policy is too important to be made in a piecemeal manner.”

That's funny. I don't recall Canadians ever being consulted on the immigration system and whether we were comfortable with being flooded with immigrants from Asia yet when applications from Asian countries fall the lack of consultation in now a concern? That's rich!

Let's be clear by what she means by consultation. What she means is that the immigration industry of which she is apart of should be consulted foremost and only, giving them de-facto control of the immigration system and consequently determining Canada's demographic future. The rest of us are supposed to shut up and live with it. And considering the immigration industry attracts agenda driven neo-colonialists the idea that they hold sway in determining immigration policy is something to be worried about.

And if you read between the lines you can see her concern has nothing to do with the number of immigrants Canada receives as a whole since that hasn't changed but what concerns her is the mix due to the decrease in applications from Asia. Could race have something to do it? I believe so.

Why wasn't it an issue when nearly half of Canada's yearly intake of immigrants are coming from Asia? Would it be an issue if the vast majority of them came from Asia? I doubt it. I suspect what concerns her is the possibility that fewer immigrants of her racial background will be coming to Canada because we all know but won't admit that race matters. If race didn't matter then the drop in applications from Asia shouldn't be a concern at all.

It's veiled racism against the host majority society but also hypocritical. Having the country transformed and its host population replaced by Asian immigration is nothing to be alarmed about however the slightest hint that the immigration system may shift to favour immigrants of a similar culture and background of the host society is something a concern. Give me a break!

Hopefully this trend continues and if applications from Asia continue to fall it will only raise one question on the minds of the majority of Canadians: does this mean we can finally afford to buy a house now?

Sunday, 6 May 2012

On top of that there's a lot of document fraud going on especially in places like Indian and China, Canada's top two immigrant source countries.

I do believe Canadian professional organizations intentionally put up barriers to hinder credential recognition of foreign trained professionals - irrespective of where they were trained - to shield their incomes from the downward pressure mass immigration imposes on them. That should be something only the little people have to put up with.

Most of us assume that tuberculosis (TB), the wasting lung disease that carried off millions during the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution, was conquered 50 years ago with the advent of antibiotics.

But with 350 new cases of active TB each year in Toronto, for example, we shouldn't be complacent.{...}

"In Toronto today, almost 95% of all cases of TB in the city are from people born in other parts of the world," explains Khan, an infectious diseases physician and scientist at St. Michael's Hospital. "That's because in many parts of the developing world, access to medicines to treat TB is not available."

TB is a serious and contagious disease with a long incubation but most people exposed to it (that's about one-third of us, globally) have healthy immune systems to keep the germ in check. But some people who may have acquired TB in their home countries may develop the disease even decades after coming to Canada.

If the disease is dormant, the chest screening that is done for immigration purposes may show nothing. Only if their X-ray is abnormal is a new Canadian given a skin test to see if they have TB in its active form. Even if they do not, those with abnormal X-rays are put under surveillance when they arrive -- seen by a doctor and followed by the local public health department.

A TB skin test can confirm whether or not you're a carrier or have the disease. But that test is not part of the immigration exam, says Khan. Of the 250,000 new immigrants to Canada each year, Khan estimates that 85,000 could be carriers. Their inactive infection could be easily treated, but if they develop active TB, they would require a lengthy and very costly multi-antibiotic treatment.

More than 1 million Ontarians have diabetes and the Greater Toronto Area is home to approximately one half of all cases, a massive new study has found.

Brampton, parts of Mississauga, Etobicoke, Rexdale and Scarborough have some of the highest rates in the province — with the exception of First Nations communities, where as many as one in three people have diabetes.{...}

Previous reports have shown some communities in the GTA have higher than average rates of diabetes. But the new data reveals rates in several areas are even higher than some experts anticipated.

In Brampton, Malton and Rexdale, for example, between 12 and 22 of every 100 adults have diabetes. The provincial average is about 9 cases for every 100 adults.{...}

Booth said diabetes is more common in certain ethnic groups, including people of Aboriginal, South Asian, African and Hispanic descent. These groups are more likely to get type 2 diabetes — and at an earlier age — due to a variety of genetic factors, including a propensity to gain weight and the likelihood that extra body fat will induce insulin resistance.

Booth said the pattern revealed by the report fits with where these at-risk communities live in the province.

“There is more ethnic diversity in the GTA, so we do see higher rates of diabetes as well,” she said. “Amongst recent immigrants, South Asians have among the highest rates of diabetes. We do see communities around the GTA, such as Brampton and Mississauga, having high rates of diabetes where we know a lot of South Asian immigrants are settling.”{...}

Not only do they bring us their food and culture but their health care costs as well. I feel so enriched.

How about we don't bring people in who are predisposed to these kinds of illnesses? Do we really need to bring in reckless numbers of immigrants from South Asia, Africa, and South America? Is the country going to fall apart if we don't?

We know South Asians are predisposed to diabetes so what's the point of allowing so many of them in? Why do we allow them to import their parents? Why do we allow immigration from TB hotspots? None of this makes sense but rationality doesn't run the immigration system.

Every planeload of "new Canadians™" from countries with substandard sanitary conditions that lands at Pearson International Airport in Toronto are just more future occupied hospital beds. This is like getting your water from the swamp instead of the spring. Doing so puts your health at risk and burdens further the health care system.

If immigration is part of some right wing conspiracy to usher in private health care by financially undermining Canada's publicly funded health care system then no one can accuse it of not doing it's job.

Actually they do leave eventually but with Canadian citizenship in tow to make money in mother China and evade Canadian taxes with the expectation that, when needed, they can get full access to tax payer supported social programs that they paid very little into because they were too busy evading Canadian taxes by making money in mother China. And not until they have successfully imported their children to capitalize on Canada's publicly subsidized education system and after successfully dumping their ageing relatives on Canada's publicly subsidized health care system.

There's over 300,000 "Canadians" in Hong Kong right now. I guess they're there visiting family on a extended vacation.

And this is saying nothing of those who stay and under-report profits at their cash businesses.

I think we need another head tax.

Look, isn't Vancouver enough? How many more cities do we have to surrender to Chinese colonization?

Besides, no one wants to immigrate to or live in Chinada or Canadasia anyway.